Dems Not Happy With Coney Barrett’s Approach to the 2nd Amendment


During Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Barrett shared her views on how she would approach cases regarding the 2nd Amendment… and it wasn’t exactly what Dianne Feinstein (D-California) wanted to hear.

As Feinstein was making her case for stricter gun control she asked how Coney Barrett would rule on the matter.

“I spent a lot of time in that opinion looking at the history of the Second Amendment and looking at the Supreme Court’s cases,” Barrett told Feinstein. “So, the way in which I would approach the review of gun regulation is in that same way: to look very carefully at the text, to look carefully at what the original meaning was.”

This is about right in line with what we’ve seen from her in the past.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) pushed back on Barrett's possible protection of gun rights for nonviolent felons and said a categorical distinction would be appropriate for felons.

Barrett responded:

"I think we could all agree that we ought to be careful of saying that because someone is a felon they lose any of their individual rights," Barrett told Durbin.

Democrats made clear that, while they are accusing Barrett and Trump of politicizing the high court, they only want a Justice confirmed who will agree with their political views on cases.

Barrett doesn't seem to think the law has to bend to fit the intentions of any particular legislator, even Mike Lee (R-Utah).

"The law is what the people understand it to be, not what goes on in any individual legislator's mind," Barrett told Lee. "I respect you, Senator Lee, but what passes both houses, that's the law, not any private intentions you have."

When you sign up to comment you'll also receive our regular newsletter. You can find more about how we use your information here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 thoughts on “Dems Not Happy With Coney Barrett’s Approach to the 2nd Amendment”

  1. Three cheers for Amy Barrett. She will make an outstanding member of the Supreme Court, just another really good decision by the best president ever. If you disagree you don’t belong in my country.

    1. Quit sending me emails. I have requested to UNSUBSCRIBE from your emails half a dozen times now over the course of 3 weeks. Yet, you continue to send me emails. Please stop.

  2. Of course not. It stymies Dem attempts at subjugating the population which is what they’re after. Notice they ALWAYS talk about all the shootings but they NEVER talk about the fact that 99% of them are performed by Democrat supporters

  3. It seems that Barrett’s approach is by the U.S. Constitution, NOT someone’s intent. We go by the COURT of LAW, NOT political intent. Thank You much, and may God Bless as you are NOMINATED for the Supreme court. One Happy Patriot. Team Trump and his allies 2020.

  4. When asked about the 2nd Amendment by a GOP Senator, she sounded a bit on the weak side and ended by saying that the 2nd Amendment was to protect self-defense. Nothing about the true meaning, that being to equip the people with the ability to offset a standing army and protect against a tyrannical federal government.

    1. Viet Vet – Barrett was using her head with that comment being placed perficly. The comment still has the same meaning of over all protection with out starting a political fight in the conformation hearings. In no way was she being weak with her statement she was being absolute without starting a verbal war with the Democraps and Rino”s. She is a very brillent person and is a fabulous judge that has the ability to asses her surroundings and the people that she is dealing with.

    2. “…ended by saying that the 2nd Amendment was to protect self-defense.” Equipping the people with the ability to offset a standing army and protect against a tyrannical federal government IS self defense!

  5. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.
    U.S. Supreme Court: “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254.
    OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
    STATE OF GEORGIA
    : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CEPlaintiffs,
    : 1215136-60-MALIHI
    5.
    Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).
    • Supreme Court of Virginia: “Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.” Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 335, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929).

  6. Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. U.S. Supreme Court: “[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . .. [C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, “when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.'” 503 U.S. 249, 254. OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF GEORGIA
    : Docket Number: OSAH-SECSTATE-CEPlaintiffs,
    : 1215136-60-MALIHI
    Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this Court finds that the cases cited by Defendant are not controlling. When the Court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the “first step . . . is to examine the plain statutory language.” Morrison v. Claborn, 294 Ga. App. 508, 512 (2008). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but forbidden. In the absence of words of limitation, words in a statute should be given their ordinary and everyday meaning.” Six Flags Over Ga. v. Kull, 276 Ga. 210, 211 (2003) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because there is no other “natural and reasonable construction” of the statutory language, this Court is “not authorized either to read into or to read out that which would add to or change its meaning.” Blum v. Schrader, 281 Ga. 238, 240 (2006) (quotation marks omitted).
    • Supreme Court of Virginia: “Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.” Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 335, 149 S.E. 541, 542 (1929).
    In Congress, July 4, 1776 the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    Inalienable Right Law and Legal Definition: Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property. However, these rights can be transferred with the consent of the person possessing those rights. Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one’s consent.[Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97, 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952)]. A person can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights by actual or constructive consent.

  7. It Is Time that we put someone like Judge Barrett in the Suprem Court. A person that supports our consitution and the laws of the land. We do not need polititions making rulings on our laws because of their personnel desirers. It makes no difference of political affiliation or religious preference as long as the judges represent our constitution and our laws. That is their job and that is what the people of this great nation expect and deserve. Any thing that polititions demand personnely from our top justice system, out side of their assigned duties is a breach of our constitution and the peoples trust, and those polititiolns need to be replaced because they do not represent the people of this great nation.